FIDE Delegate Election, Short v Jones

[Mick Norris]

Are either/both candidates going to publish an Election Address?

The MCF would welcome this before we met on 27 September to decide who to vote for

[John Philpott]

Mick Norris wrote

Are either/both candidates going to publish an Election Address?

Rupert Jones had indicated that we was intending to provide an election address, but I have not so far received it. I e-mailed Nigel Short earlier this week to enquire whether he is planning to prepare one, but he has not yet responded to this question.

[John Philpott]

John Philpott wrote

I e-mailed Nigel Short earlier this week to enquire whether he is planning to prepare one, but he has not yet responded to this question.

Nigel has now confirmed that he will be providing an election address.

[John McKenna]

It could be that the two are going to have to redraw their plans after mulling over what Kasparov had to say ("This was all just business, nobody wanted a war...") about his dealings with FIDE in Istanbul.

[Roger de Coverly]

It could be that the two are going to have to redraw their plans after mulling over what Kasparov had to say ("This was all just business, nobody wanted a war...") about his dealings with FIDE in Istanbul.

I don't know if there's an overview of what the changes to FIDE statutes mean in practice but perhaps the two sides have conceded:-
(a) that Kasparov will stop wasting FIDE's (or Kirsan's?) time and money by raising issues with CAS
(b) that FIDE have changed the statutes for the conduct of elections and appointment of VPs to be less biased in favour of incumbents.

I would presume there's still an expectation of a "not Kirsan" candidate at the 2014 elections.

[John McKenna]

"If I think I am the only one, then OK. I'll probably run. BUT..." (Kasparov on Chessbase News yesterday)
At least the fight has became one within the confines of FIDE, and perhaps also within member federations - as we see mirrored here between Nigel Short and Rupert Jones. They may not, though, depict themselves as purely the pro-Gary/Kirsan incumbent/ challenger, respectively.

[Mick Norris]

It could be that the two are going to have to redraw their plans after mulling over what Kasparov had to say ("This was all just business, nobody wanted a war...") about his dealings with FIDE in Istanbul.

I don't know if there's an overview of what the changes to FIDE statutes mean in practice but perhaps the two sides have conceded:-
(a) that Kasparov will stop wasting FIDE's (or Kirsan's?) time and money by raising issues with CAS
(b) that FIDE have changed the statutes for the conduct of elections and appointment of VPs to be less biased in favour of incumbents.

I would presume there's still an expectation of a "not Kirsan" candidate at the 2014 elections.

The full Kasparov interview is here:
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8474

I think it is worth reading

[Nigel Short]

Sorry, Mick, but I haven't received any e-mail from you, to the best of my knowledge. My address is [email protected] . You are very welcome to ask me questions. And, yes, I do intend to provide an electoral address.

[LawrenceCooper]

Sorry, Mick, but I haven't received any e-mail from you, to the best of my knowledge. My address is [email protected] . You are very welcome to ask me questions. And, yes, I do intend to provide an electoral address.

I think it was John Philpott who had e-mailed you albeit he quoted Mick in his post.

[David Pardoe]

Since we`re also still looking to fill the CEO role, I`m wondering whether Rupert might consider that role....and leave Nigel `in post` as FIDE Delegate...
Have current board members considered this, and maybe discussed such options with Rupert.
I`m sure Rupert has much to contribute to UK chess, and would make a fine CEO, bringing valuable skills and experience to the board.
That would leave the ECF looking to fill just one key senior post, which would not be bad, and I believe would leave the ECF with a pretty good team going forward...assuming Roger and others are elected, as would seem appropriate.
We must make maximum use of the talents that are available.....

We tend to dwell on problems, and the ECF has its fair share, but we must also look at the positives, and there are many...and the positive steps we can take to move UK chess forward.
A nice start might be to see if any steps could be taken to keep CJ `on board`, perhaps as Minister for Professional & Foriegn affairs. If he could be persuaded to go ahead with his previous `offer` to underwrite next years British Championships at Torquay, that would be magic.....

[Martin Regan]

I`m sure Rupert has much to contribute to UK chess, and would make a fine CEO

David,

What makes you think he would make a fine CEO? I have no idea if he would, he well might. I just don't understand how you can be "sure".

[Martin Regan]

Rdc wrote:

Is it not at the heart of the Jones challenge and those who nominated and support him that Ilyumzhinov shouldn't be removed at all?

I actually don't believe it is, certainly in Mr Jones' case. I believe he just wants to help his beloved Fide defeat those who attack it. There are a number within Fide who seek to divorce the "organisation" from its leadership. Unfortunately, that is an impossible task - the leadership is so bad it has infected the organisation.

[Roger de Coverly]

I actually don't believe it is, certainly in Mr Jones' case. I believe he just wants to help his beloved Fide defeat those who attack it.

I would like to think to have any chance in the ECF Council vote he will have to say, loud and clear, that he supports the idea that Kirsan should stand down, whatever embarrassment this may cause to his FIDE cronies. That I think would be the view of English players, not that there's any direct vote available.

[David Pardoe]

I`m sure Rupert has much to contribute to UK chess, and would make a fine CEO

David,

What makes you think he would make a fine CEO? I have no idea if he would, he well might. I just don't understand how you can be "sure".

Hi Martin,
We will all have our own ideas regarding `the perfect candidate` for these top posts..
Yes, I can see the appeal of a high profile maveric/charasmatic charactor, who can bring in the crowds, boost membership, and transform our finances....
The proof of the pudding is in the eating...we can never say for certain that Mr X or Mr Y will make a roaring success of things...
What do we percieve they will bring to the table...
But, before that, the question is...is the suggested candidate willing to put themselves forward...and can they fill the main criteria of acting with due competance, diligence, and effort, to deliver positive progress/results.
We`ve had a good round of candidate bashing (and manifesto bashing) on these boards of late...slagging off people left, right & centre....mostly because they dont fit certain criteria that are pulled out of the clouds.
Many of our previous and recent incumbants...thought to be `the special ones`, have come crashing to the ground...slipping on various banana skins....and sometimes battered by `the linch mob`.
Maybe we just need to come down to earth a bit.. Going onto the pitch with `men short` automatically puts you at a disadvantage.....

If Rupert were interested in the CEO post, I`m sure he would do a good job, and be able to work well with the current team.
Partly, it depends what we need to achieve in the coming few months and years. Do we need a period of calm reflection and stocking taking, where we also consolidate in various areas, and introduce constructive improvements.
Roger mentioned the `Membership Scheme` in his `CV`. Many believe this area demands furtber attention, and I`m sure many improvements might be possible without necessarily going for major surgery. I`ve outlined a number of options in other `threads`...
Also, as regards our semi detached `south centric` ECF....where huge areas north of Watford junction feel a sence of `exclusion`. If the ECF were to hold its meetings periodically in Sheffield..lets say every 18 months or so...that could go some way to helping to reconnect with the membership across the land.
Similar arrangements to hold meetings in Bristol, might help connect with the west country...
There`s a number of other initiatives relating to Charity status, Tax/VAT, and other matters where I`m sure we could make progress.
Rome was not built in a day....

[Sean Hewitt]

Also, as regards our semi detached `south centric` ECF....where huge areas north of Watford junction feel a sence of `exclusion`. If the ECF were to hold its meetings periodically in Sheffield..lets say every 18 months or so...that could go some way to helping to reconnect with the membership across the land.

David - are you aware that half of all ECF meetings are held "north of Watford junction"?