Holloid in Administration

[PeterFarr]

Not sure if anyone had previously spotted and posted about this - apologies if so.

An unhappy, but possibly not unexpected outcome.

http://www.prw.com/subscriber/headlines2.html?id=2579

[Ian Kingston]

There's a certain irony in having Smith & Williamson, former British Championship sponsor, as the administrator.

[PeterFarr]

Yes indeed. Ouch.

[PeterFarr]

Actually that's an idea, Smith & Williamson could be persuaded to pick up the pieces and..... oh ok, maybe not.

[David Robertson]

Charles W Wood & Gerry Walsh will have the answer. The former told this Forum, and its ever-so-gullible host, and the ever-so-stupid ECF Board of the day, that Holloid didn't merely promise to deliver, but was ready to deliver chess sets by the squintillion. Lorry-loads, if only we could get the lorries. We were told by ECF officers and by Holloid, and the gormless blog monkeys agreed, that specialist injection equipment was being/had been imported from China. Get ready for a tsunami of chess sets. Some chess sets were indeed distributed by Holloid - to schools in Hastings (I think) and of course, Teesside - but not necessarily chess sets produced by Holloid.

And that was it. A total nonsense from start to finish. Opposed and exposed as a farce and a fantasy by me (and a few others); supported and indulged by ECF officers (including some incumbents currently); and disowned by all and sundry after the event; it remains a testimony to the credulous naivety of the ECF and to the delusional qualities of our community more generally.

[Roger de Coverly]

it remains a testimony to the credulous naivety of the ECF and to the delusional qualities of our community more generally.

Yes and no. Attacking potential or actual sponsors is undesirable and in general the forum tried to reserve judgement.

The then CEO seemed to endorse the project and focused more on how the sets would be delivered rather than whether they would be manufactured in the first place.

[PeterFarr]

Skimming through the old threads, it’s clear that there was significant scepticsm from early on. It appears that Andrew Martin was the first to set the alarm bells ringing, at least in this forum. A lot of the posts were cautious, no doubt for the reasons suggested by Roger, so it seems unfair in this context to talk about a deluded community.

Some of the exchanges involving Prof. Robertson’s attempts at discovering the truth should only be read by those that enjoy blood sports. Or possibly by English Language students set the task of contrasting a precise, forensic use of language, against a stream of obfuscation.

It’s actually easy to see how the ECF had an initial attraction to this idea, but proper use of project appraisal processes should then have been applied, and to my mind this has got to be the main learning for the future, and perhaps the only positive thing that could come out of this whole mess.

I suspect the critical error was to be blinded by the word "free" into not making a proper evaluation.

Anyway, dwelling on the past has limited value, so moving on to what should be done in future:

Any decent project appraisal asks a range of questions, such as:

What are the goals of this project? What are we seeking to achieve? What are the measures of success? (in this case presumably not just number of sets delivered, but number of children taking up the game etc…)

How does the project fit our strategic objectives? (e.g. where does chess sets for school-children rank as a priority vs. funding for international teams, grading systems….)

What alternative ways might we adopt to meet those objectives?

What are the costs to us of the project? What resources will we need? (it soon becomes clear it’s not ‘free’...)

What are the aims of our commercial partner? What is their commercial status (i.e. do the due diligence)? Are they a good fit for our strategic goals and our public image?

Who should we involve in the project? Who are the key stakeholders and customers (ECF officials, ECF members, schools, pupils, clubs etc…)

What is the communication plan? (communication by whom, to whom, what, when and why)

What are the risks involved in the project, and how do we manage / mitigate these?

What are the authorities for the project? Who is responsible for exactly what aspects? What are the sign-offs?

Beyond this, there are the more detailed tasks involved with running a project, but the main point is not to run off and start before addressing these types of question. It doesn’t guarantee success, life being uncertain, but it does improve the odds.

None of this is inherently difficult, its mainly a question of being disciplined and professional.

[John McKenna]

Splendid learnings of business for make benefit of Glorious Chess Federation of England!

[PeterFarr]

I don't get your point?

[John McKenna]

Peter, there is no point. John

[Christopher Kreuzer]

Peter, there is no point. John

Enthusiasm meets nihilism?

I'm sure Borat wouldn't approve.

[David Robertson]

Peter, THIS MAY HELP

Mr McKenna appears to believe, with tiresome frequency, that opaque and cryptic utterances are an indication of wit, or maybe more. They aren't of course. But we are patient

[PeterFarr]

Oh I see, stupid of me, my 12 year old son loves Borat.
Actually could we get Sacha Baron Cohen as our FIDE delegate? With respect to Nigel, Sacha would wind up the dear leader even more effectively perhaps?

[John McKenna]

Thanks Prof. Your posts are always worth waiting for - mine are merely empty jestures. John
Peter, I agree Borat would make a fine ambassador to FIDE should Nigel retire.

[Carl Hibbard]

This forum and loss of sponsor nonsense still winds me up