ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Debate directly related to English Chess Federation matters.
David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by David Pardoe » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:32 pm

Jack, I think your getting confused .
Firstly, let me remind you specifically that I referred to the latitude of the rules ....there may not have actually been a specific breach. just a stretched interpretation shall we say.
Secondly, I didnt say that some of these cases hadnt already been reported and dealt with.
But in many cases it becomes pragmatic simply to allow the benefit of the doubt.
Yes, I can state that various issues have been pursued, fairly vigourously in some cases...but there is a tendancy to sweep things under the table in some quarters.
I`m sure that many captains can cite cases where they feel aggrieved, and outcomes have been unsatisfactory.
Naming and shaming on these public forums in cases like this is totally out of the question..
BRING BACK THE BCF

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19086
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by Roger de Coverly » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:34 pm

David Pardoe wrote: These very loose rules mean that certain players get selected (sometimes from well outside an area), which probably means that genuine `local players` dont get selected.
Apart from the obvious, that you don't select players graded 150 for an Open team unless the alternative is a default, is it really the case that there are surplus players? If so, the remedy is local rather than national, they have their county change its selection policy.

It may no longer be true, but I believe I saw a policy that Middlesex restrict their selection to players active with local Middlesex clubs.

David Pardoe
Posts: 1225
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 11:29 pm
Location: NORTH WEST

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by David Pardoe » Wed Sep 26, 2012 4:59 pm

I`m not sure about the term `surplus players`...lets say `alternative, local players`.
Middlesex are to be commended on their guidance...maybe they have more availability.
Often, it is `big brother` glamour team, who grabs a high rated player(s) from neighbouring county territory....or much further afield.
If you could pick say a 200 grade player, and the alternative was a `local` 185 player, most captains, looking to cook up the strongest team, would pinch the 200 player.
Certainly, I know of teams that play 150 players in their `Open teams`...such is the difficulty sometimes.
But yes, there are counties who may have an abundance of players, where some players (near the grade boundary) may not get selected. Thats one reason that players are keen to maintain good grades.
To illustrate...
Lets take `county X`, running a U140 team. They progress to the Finals stages, and quite often you`ll see the team sheet go up a gear`, as the captain hunts out stronger players, and maybe more players start to get interested. So, in this case, the county team might start off by running down to grade 110 on bottom board. Then in the Finals stages, these lower graded players get ditched for those on higher grades who can be persuaded to play. So, in a U140 team, players graded U125 might well struggle to get a game.
Thus the captain might find himself having to apologise to some regular players who suddenly find themselves out of the team.
I guess thats the nature of competition.
BRING BACK THE BCF

Alan Walton
Posts: 1318
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 8:33 pm
Location: Oldham

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by Alan Walton » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:38 pm

David,

Isn't the choice of the player which county he plays for (obviously if picked and eligible) his own, I don't see counties deliberately grabbing players, they ask people eligible and let them make their own mind up whether to play or not

I for example am eligible to play for two counties, Greater Manchester and Yorkshire, I currently choose Yorkshire

But if Yorkshire get 16 players stronger than me in their team, why would I be unhappy with that if it means the team has a better chance of winning

Mick Norris
Posts: 8285
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:12 am
Location: Bolton, Greater Manchester

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by Mick Norris » Wed Sep 26, 2012 5:40 pm

IM Jack Rudd wrote:
David Pardoe wrote: in one sentence you clearly stated that a captain would certainly check to see if his players had played for another county that season. Then, in the next breath you say that they might `forget to do this` ...even for a Semi final.
Then you made the ridiculous comment that I should name names.....so that you could personally go and check up?
Yes, quite often things happen, to which `the benefit of the doubt` has to prevail, or its too much hastle to pursue the percieved `offenders.
And there are various abuses that fall outside the rules, which occur from time to time.
Yes, you should name names. It is important for the integrity of the competition that breaches of the rules be reported so that the ECF can deal with the offence.
Jack

The accusations are always against Lancs

Some of them have been reported, or slightly more precisely, queried, with the ECF County Championship Controller of the time

Reactions have included "it's not my job to check", "what's it got to do with you" and the like

There are too many players in the ECF County Championships to expect the Controller to check them, of course, which brings us back to the point of rules, enforcement and penalties
Any postings on here represent my personal views and should not be taken as representative of the Manchester Chess Federation www.manchesterchess.co.uk

John Philpott

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by John Philpott » Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:14 pm

As this thread has now been dragged way off topic, I am beginning to rather regret the particular example of a previous assertion that I decided to quote! Does anybody else have anything further to say on the distinction between representatives and delegates?

E Michael White
Posts: 1378
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by E Michael White » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:39 am

John Philpott wrote:The delegate model of representation is a model of a representative democracy. In this model, constituents elect their representatives as delegates for their constituency. These delegates act only as a mouthpiece for the wishes of their constituency, and have no autonomy from the constituency. This model does not provide representatives the luxury of acting in their own conscience. Essentially, the representative acts as the voice of those who are (literally) not present.

This model was formulated by Edmund Burke (1729-1797), a British philosopher, who also created the trustee model of representation.
In choosing to cut and paste from Wikipedia you omitted some important points. Burke made his comments on different models, as he saw them, shortly after being elected as MP for Bristol in 1774.

He also said:-

You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not a member for Bristol but he is a member of parliament. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

However the electors of Bristol didn't like their opinions being sacrificed for high sounding philosophy and threw him out at the next election.

Most wiki articles are posted on this topic with an American bias as "representative" is seen more in the role of "The House of Representatives". The British slant would be more along the lines of a solicitor as a legal representative who will from time to time take instruction from his client on important points before proceeding.

In the FSAM Act the title Appointed Representative would be more accurately described as an Appointed Agent of Limited Delegated Powers" but it doesn’t have the same ring about it so the legal writers chose to specially define representative for the purposes of the Act.

As regards the meaning to be attached to "representative" in the ECF constitution you would need to look at the meaning in 1904 when the BCF was formed as that was to be carried forward into the ECF constitution. I have a copy of the 1904 constitution and some supporting documentation and will see if I can locate them.

Roger de Coverly
Posts: 19086
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm

Re: ECF Director elections for 2012/13

Post by Roger de Coverly » Thu Sep 27, 2012 12:52 am

E Michael White wrote: In the FSAM Act the title Appointed Representative would be more accurately described as an Appointed Agent of Limited Delegated Powers" but it doesn’t have the same ring about it so the legal writers chose to specially define representative for the purposes of the Act.
Licensed salesperson would be more apt in the context.

Returning to the ECF AGM what's still missing?

There's a re-election statement by the other non-Exec and a general non-Exec report if it's intended that they should be produced. A report or not of the Chairman falls into that category.

I think I noted that the nominated heads of the Finance and Governance Committees were not intending to add to the pdf pile.

That leaves the accounts and Finance Director report and statement by the Marketing etc. candidate.

Post Reply