ECF Director elections for 2012/13

[Andrew Zigmond]

Regarding Martin Regan's post;

Earlier this week it was revealed that CJ de Mooi's pre condition of a meeting with Alex was for Alex to apologise for unspecified actions (a request for clarification was ignored). If that's not expecting somebody to `capitulate` I'm not sure what is.

Alex has repeatedly stated that all he wants is a two way conversation where grievances and frustration can be discussed with a view to making progress. It is CJ de Mooi who has refused to meet with Alex and evidence (albeit circumstantial) suggests that he is doing his best to avoid him. What is Mr de Mooi afraid of - being shouted at?

I've been following this debate for a year now and the same cycle seems to repeat itself. A simple enough question is asked of the President, it goes unanswered and matters escalate. The problem with situations like this is that little things that shouldn't really matter (such as seating arrangements at a meeting) get noted and conclusions drawn that may or may not be true.

Mr Regan - you have clear misgivings about the candidacy of Roger Edwards. Perhaps you could provide specifics rather than vague concerns.

[Jonathan Rogers]

AM wrote:

We were looking forward to sitting next to Mr De Mooi and hopeful that we might make some progress.

Alex,

This obsession, played to rousing support of those with various axes to grind, has simply gone too far.

Let's be clear. You do not wish to "make progress". You wish Mr De Mooi to capitulate and apologize for the harm he has done you and yours - I understand that, and in the past, as you know, have sent you a private message to underscore that understanding - but your actions are now hugely damaging for British (not English) chess. Of course, if any of us were CJ or Nigel we would not want to sit next to you and "make progress" - you have made common ground with those who, to their shame, have labelled CJ a liar, a fraudster and a cheat on the basis of flimsy circumstantial evidence.

You have further - and this is more serious for an official of Chess Scotland - sought to put up a candidate for the President of the English Chess Federation simply to resolve your personal battle. That the candidate Roger Edwards - a very nice man - is so unsuited to the post as to be risible (and I speak as the recent head of Cheshire and North Wales Chess Association whose congresses Roger runs) is unworthy of you. (and please... posts about "I knew nothing of his standing"- I shall ignore)

CJ has not been a good president,but nor a terrible one. He has, however, been better than his predecessor and is head and shoulders and torso above what you hope will be his successor.

Had you retained some semblance of balance, I would probably have used what little influence I have to secure "none of the above" over Mr De Mooi - now I shall seek to ensure he is reelected.

Sometimes I wonder whether the expression "You're coming over loud and clear" was originally designed personally for Martin

[Gerard Killoran]

CJ has been tweeting about his time in Istanbul. Staying at the Hilton, enjoying the breakfast and the spa. He went on a yacht to go sight-seeing on the Bosphorus. You wouldn't know there was a chess tournament going on from what he's put up so far. Is the ECF paying for any of this?

[Andrew Bak]

CJ has been tweeting about his time in Istanbul. Staying at the Hilton, enjoying the breakfast and the spa. He went on a yacht to go sight-seeing on the Bosphorus. You wouldn't know there was a chess tournament going on from what he's put up so far. Is the ECF paying for any of this?

The only chess related tweet I saw was that on Friday morning he was going to do "chessie things". Admittedly much of his followership probably couldn't give a toss about chess but might be more interested in his sight-seeing activities.

It seems as if these "chessie things" sadly involved avoiding Alex and Lara...

[JustinHorton]

He doesn't half get offered a lot of jobs, CJ.

[benedgell]

Steve Giddins has just Tweeted that CJ has resigned from ECF (unconfirmed)

[benedgell]

http://stevegiddinschessblog.blogspot.c ... l?spref=tw

[David Robertson]

He asks: is the nightmare over?

I think you'll find the nightmare is only just beginning

[Jonathan Bryant]

A token amount I believe. (I am prepared to believe it is more likely to genuinely be a token amount, I don't think it would be fair to assume it is a junket.

I'm less willing to 'believe' - for a variety of reasons. As for junketeering, it would be easy to explain precisely what benefit the ECF is gaining from HIM being there. Nobody has done that yet, though - including CJdM himself.

[Jonathan Rogers]

The benefit that he might schmooze himself a job over there and then resign as our President!

DR says that the nightmare might just be beginning - but why? IF he has a new job in the chess world it will inevitably involve being a celebrity/character/media contact and his inclination to rock the boat within the English chess world may be gone.

[Martin Regan]

Mr Regan - you have clear misgivings about the candidacy of Roger Edwards. Perhaps you could provide specifics rather than vague concerns.

Mr Zigmond, perceptive of you. Roger Edwards is a decent man. However, in my view he is unsuited to the role to which he aspires. You ask for specifics - but I am of the mind to let you and the members of the "Bedlam Brigade" do the same type of frenzied investigation to which they have subjected Mr De Mooi.

I'll start you off with a statement on the SCCU website in 2,000.It's a long and sorry tale.

LIST HAS SERIOUS OMISSIONS
19.8.00, updated 21.8.00

Your Webmaster unexpectedly got a copy in the post yesterday morning. As a Grader, presumably. Thanks, BCF, and he's not complaining, but he'd have been happy with it by email. Must have cost a packet if they've posted it to all of the 100-odd graders.
Can't say we like the bilious cover, but otherwise the presentation is hard to fault. Standard and Rapid grades are not, after all, in separate lists. They're all very readably on one line.

Unfortunately, the good news stops there.

The List is considerably smaller than previous ones. About 10400 names, compared with something like 13 or 14 thousand last time. The shortfall cannot be entirely due to the excision of duplicate names. It is presumably something to do with the various omissions.

We hear, from a Yorkshire correspondent, that no one's in from Yorkshire. This seemed to surprise him, as well as us. It isn't a Yorkshire declaration of independence; the YCA grader says he sent his results. The content of the List has also been severely criticised, on grounds of completeness and accuracy, by another commentator who was so offensive about it, though not to the SCCU, that we've forgotten his name on purpose. He was substantially right. There were always going to be omissions, especially in a List produced under such time pressure, but one has come to light which is very serious.

Events omitted:
(a) The List does not contain a list of events graded. However, some events were omitted because not received, and others because received very late in July. The late ones will no doubt be on the CD.
(b) Some - the Director has found at least 35 - were omitted because the grader forgot to give the time controls. This prevents a file from processing.
(c) It appears that events played in 1999, which means June to December, were accidentally omitted from the calculations. This is why the incidence of A grades is so implausibly low. It's something to do with the twice-yearly cycle which (in theory) applied last year. A few events may have escaped this mishap, and we guess that winter leagues are OK if the grader simply dated them 1.1.00 as graders will.

It's possible - investigations continue - that 1999 games went in as "previous-season" ones. This would mess up the grade categories, but not the grades themselves to quite the same extent.

[JustinHorton]

I am of the mind to let you and the members of the "Bedlam Brigade" do the same type of frenzied investigation to which they have subjected Mr De Mooi.

And how unreasonable, in retrospect, to have cast doubt on the probity of a chap who has the ECF pay for a working holiday and then resigns his post once the holiday has started.

[Martin Regan]

J Horton wrote:

And how unreasonable, in retrospect, to have cast doubt on the probity of a chap who has the ECF pay for a working holiday and then resigns his post once the holiday has started.

There you go again Justin, making accusations on the most threadbare evidence.

What is the evidence?

CJ is in Istanbul.

CJ has already attended the odd FIDE meeting

The ECF has made a "token" contribution to the cost of this holiday.

This we know.

What you have done, without the slightest scintilla of proof, is to magic this "token" into a sum unknown but of some substance; as without this your charges of junketeering have no legs.

Provide the evidence that the "token sum" was greater than, say £100, or be silent.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Mr Regan - you have clear misgivings about the candidacy of Roger Edwards. Perhaps you could provide specifics rather than vague concerns.

Mr Zigmond, perceptive of you. Roger Edwards is a decent man. However, in my view he is unsuited to the role to which he aspires. You ask for specifics - but I am of the mind to let you and the members of the "Bedlam Brigade" do the same type of frenzied investigation to which they have subjected Mr De Mooi.

I'll start you off with a statement on the SCCU website in 2,000.It's a long and sorry tale.

<snip>

For those of us who don't know the background, what does this have to do with Roger Edwards? Was he the Grading Manager or Home Chess Director or something like that?

[JustinHorton]

as without this your charges of junketeering have no legs

I think they're walking around quite adequately, ta.

Chap goes to Istanbul, as our representative. Tweets enthusiastically about how he's enjoying his holiday. Then suddenly resigns when he's supposed to be carrying out his responsibilities on our behalf.

I'm afraid the specific amount paid - or for that matter, sought - isn't really the issue. If you think it is then that's your privilege. We will have to differ.

But CJ is a bad, bad cause to tie yourself to.